A group from the English department attended this meeting to continue the discussion of freshman composition in the program proposal. The group included present and former Freshman Composition directors Elizabeth Addison, Jim Addison, Gayle Miller, and Jim Nicholl, department head Jim Byer, upper level writing instructor Mary Adams, and Freshman English committee member Terry Nienhuis. The committee asked the English faculty to share their best ideas on composition instruction in light of the committee's proposal, considering the use of learning communities, a serious writing-across-the-curriculum component, and the computer requirement and computer based instruction in composition.

Elizabeth Addison stated that there is excitement for the potential of learning communities and linked courses in contributing to teaching of composition. She asked Gayle Miller to provide historical context for the present English 101 and 102 courses. Nine years ago when Gayle became director of Freshman English, the 101 course covered basic mechanics of writing, and 102 involved writing about literature. The 102 course developed too strong a focus on analysis of literature at the expense of composition. With the idea that much of college writing is of the persuasive type, the 102 course was modified to pick up some of the 101 skills and add argumentation and persuasive writing, while 101 began with students writing about personal experience as a platform to motivate writing. The basic introduction to literature became the role of the 201, 203 and 204 general education literature courses. Gayle noted that this shift is a disciplinary trend in composition instruction and that other institutions have made the same shift. Jim Nicholl added that 102 used to include introduction to library research, and that this is still included, but some information resource instruction is provided with the assistance of the library faculty, beginning in 101. This includes instruction in the correct and appropriate use of the Internet and World Wide Web as resource tools. English 101 incorporates common assignments of writing papers that describe personal experiences or memories, a profile of a person, place or event, and an expository paper. These assignments get students started in using detail to back up generalizations, organizing arguments, and unifying their thoughts. English 102 extends these basics to higher order thinking skills. Generally 101 courses require five papers developed by a process that includes first drafts that are peer reviewed, reworked, reviewed by the instructor, and reworked for polish. Sometimes papers are further refined for inclusion in a student portfolio of written work. Revising written work is an important and often new skill for students. The use of electronic classrooms has been a benefit as students are often more willing to revise and change their work in an electronic form that has not been committed to paper. Students are not as interested in re-seeing, rethinking, and expanding work that has already been "finished" by virtue of being printed on a piece of paper. The re-development process can be aided by individual student-instructor conferences where the instructor actually grades the paper while the student watches, so students get a new insight into what instructors are looking for.

 Freshman composition courses borrow from the learning communities concept, forming "writing communities" in which there is considerable group work in both writing and research. Students look at campus issues, such as student drinking, and produce better work when they write about "honest" personal topics rather than "school" topics. Linking of courses and students can also reinforce the need for good critical reading skills. Writing about a subject invokes better thinking skills. The Daedalus software allows discussion in the writing process by asking students to respond to questions about their writing. By articulating answers, their thinking is clarified. For many students, developing ideas as part of the writing process is a new skill.

Jim Addison addressed the use of writing across the curriculum. Some programs use writing intensive courses at the upper level to follow the freshman component. Our students need as much writing as they can get, and we cannot afford to cut back on the amount of writing we require of them. Unfortunately, when students' writing skills are called into question, faculty say that teaching writing is the English department's job, and faculty don't feel qualified to provide adequate feedback on student writing. Bruce Henderson asked what expertise faculty need to give students feedback in their general writing. Terry Nienhuis responded that he had written a monograph in 1987 to address just this issue. Most faculty think that feedback on writing means close editing of writing which is very time consuming and requires intimate knowledge of grammar rules. In fact, other criteria can be used that allow instructors to give feedback relatively quickly, in the time it takes for a single reading of student work. A set of shared principles and strategies can be developed to guide student writing and faculty grading of papers. Elizabeth added that threaded discussions around class topics and Web resources for linking classes can be used to provide informal writing opportunities and to prompt student thinking through writing. Patti Cutspec asked Terry to be more specific about the kinds of shared strategies that can simplify evaluation of writing. He gave the example that surface errors in writing take attention away from writing as communication. To eliminate surface errors, we need to get students to care about writing as communication, and when they feel more strongly about their need to communicate, surface errors begin to disappear. The writing center can provide student access to drill and practice software for work on surface errors. Writers need to be encouraged not to worry about surface errors in first drafts of work. Editing happens as the last stage of the writing process, but editing and writing are very different activities. Students need to be taught to begin by finding a subject, inventing ways to look at the subject, draft their writing and receive feedback on it, and edit it as a last stage. For instructors, there is a difference between calling a student's attention to errors and providing corrections by close editing. Surface errors need only be brought to the student's attention, and they should be referred to the writing center to get help in clearing up mechanical problems in writing.

English 101 and 102 have common final examinations following the use of common syllabi and objectives. This material will be shared with the committee.

Curtis suggested that the English department representatives and selected committee members form a working group to further explore issues related to Freshman composition. Clearly, the Freshman composition program is in active development, and there is a gap between what the program is doing and what the faculty know about this development process. Issues still to be considered include (1) how significant is the use of computer software and the computer requirement to rethinking composition in the general education proposal? Elizabeth will provide copies of the department's computer classroom proposal to help illuminate this question. (2) In linking courses with Freshman composition, what role will the extensive use of part-time faculty play? Making part-time faculty responsible for learning communities is not a realistic expectation. (3) The committee wishes to consider writing across the curriculum very seriously, and use it as a bridge between freshman composition and the upper level writing course. Otherwise, the program proposal of the committee makes little sense. Do we still need six hours of composition early in the process, or is it possible that the proposal's freshman seminar, use of learning communities, effective writing across the curriculum program, and upper level writing course can be synthesized in a way to produce good writers?

Jim Nicholl noted that writing intensive courses in majors or in disciplines should be a university or graduation requirement, not just a general education requirement. However, this committee is discussing only the general education program, and other units must be responsible for university-wide reform of writing instruction. Issues outside of general education can still be influenced by general education, indeed this must be the case if we are to break down the compartmentalization of general education and fully incorporate the concepts of general education into the entire undergraduate experience.

John Habel, Dana Edge and Brian Railsback have already indicated an interest in participating in a working group. Jim Byer will provide names of English faculty interested in participating. Other committee members interested in participating in this working group should tell Curtis.

In further discussion, it was noted that the perception of some that writing on personal topics ("what I did last summer…") is insubstantial is in conflict with the reality of using these topics to motivate and develop the writing process. Elizabeth added that the writing text offers examples of professional writers' strategies so students can appreciate the complexity of the process and the different strategies that are valid. Again, one way to get students invested in writing is to get them to write about something they know. They need practice in the cognitive restructuring of allowing them to see things from another perspective. Developing communities of writers helps with this development. John Habel asked if Freshman composition makes a clear distinction between literature and composition. This is by no means the case. The idea of "excluding" literature from 102 merely means that there is a choice of texts not limited to typical poetry, literature, drama, etc. Elizabeth noted that it would be possible to take a novel and put it into 101 and 102 as a topical springboard, and there would be benefits to having all students read the same work. Gary noted that we hear anecdotally that incoming students are unexcited and turned off; are there things being done in Freshman composition to help change this? Could this be done better or differently in the sophomore year, rather than the freshman year? Learning communities could address this apathy. The use of early learning communities and grouping of students in common classes has retention possibilities. The question was raised whether both learning communities and a freshman seminar are needed.

Respectfully submitted,

Nory Prochaska, recording secretary